HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS
|
|
- Arline Goodman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS CHRIS J. CONIDIS Abstract. Samuel and others asked for a Euclidean domain with Euclidean rank strictly greater than ω, the smallest infinite ordinal. Via a limited technique Hiblot produced such a ring of Euclidean rank at most ω 2. Using a novel and more powerful technique, we are able to construct Euclidean domains of arbitrarily large Euclidean rank. This is a new and interesting solution to Samuel s question that is likely to have applications in Mathematical Logic. 1. Introduction Throughout this article all rings will be commutative with identity 1. The usual definition of a Euclidean domain R says that it is an integral domain with a function called a Euclidean norm ϕ : R N satisfying: (1) for any given a, b R, b 0, there exist elements q, r R so that a = bq + r and ϕ(r) < ϕ(b). One of the main reasons to consider Euclidean rings is that they form a subclass of the principal ideal domains. In other words, in a Euclidean ring R every ideal I R is generated by a single element x I. Indeed, it is well-known that x can be taken to be any element of I that minimizes ϕ(x). Thus, the guaranteed existence of x relies on the well-foundedness of N and it is natural to ask whether we obtain a larger class of principal ideal domains by replacing N by any infinite well-ordered set (i.e. infinite ordinal number). This natural question goes back to the algebraists Motzkin [Mot49] and Samuel [Sam71, page 283], who studied the different Euclidean norms that can exist on a given ring upon a suggestion of Zariski. More recently, logicians and algebraists have become interested in analyzing the complexity of (transfinite) constructions in this class of rings [DK11, Cla14]. Definition 1.1. If the ring R satisfies (1) above with a well-founded set (i.e. ordinal number) α replacing N, then we say that R is a transfinite Euclidean domain. Since we will be working exclusively with transfinite Euclidean domains throughout the rest of this article, we will refer to them simply as Euclidean domains. Let O denote the class of ordinal numbers. We will use lower case Greek letters to refer to elements of O. It is well-known that every non-empty subclass of O contains a minimal element. The same fact holds for any α O. Definition 1.2. Let R be a Euclidean domain with Euclidean norm ϕ : R α, α O. Then it follows that there is a unique minimal α 0 such that R is Euclidean with witness ϕ 0 : R α 0. We call this unique ordinal α 0 the Euclidean rank of R. There is a well-known theorem regarding minimal Euclidean functions Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13G05 Secondary 03D80. The author would like to thank Rod Downey and Asher Kach for introducing him to the problem of the Main Theorem, as well as Hiblot s work [Hib75]. 1
2 2 CHRIS J. CONIDIS Theorem 1.3. [Sam71, Proposition 9] Let R be a Euclidean domain with Euclidean norm ϕ : R α, α O. Now let E be the class of all Euclidean norms for R and, for each x R, define ϕ 0 (x) = min ψ E ψ(x). Then ϕ 0 is the unique (point-wise) minimal Euclidean norm for R. Motzkin gave the following constructive method for obtaining the unique minimal Euclidean norm. Theorem 1.4. [Mot49, page 1142] Let R be a ring. Define an increasing sequence of subsets of R, {S β : β O}, as follows: (1) S 0 consists of zero and the units of R; (2) given S β, define S β+1 = {x R : ( y R)( q R, r S β )[y = qx + r]}; (3) S λ = β<λ S β for all limit ordinals λ. Then R is a Euclidean domain if and only if there exists some limit ordinal λ such that R = S λ and moreover the unique minimal Euclidean function on R is given by ϕ(x) = min{β O : x S β }. In 1975 Hiblot [Hib75] gave a construction of a Euclidean domain with Euclidean rank α, ω < α ω 2, where ω = {0, 1, 2,...} denotes the ordinal with order type N (i.e. the smallest infinite ordinal number), thus answering the question of Motzkin and Samuel mentioned above. One glaring problem with Hiblot s proof, from the point of view of Mathematical Logic which aims to classify the complexity of mathematical constructions, is that it is not relativizable. In other words, one cannot repeat Hiblot s basic construction (on top of itself) to construct rings of arbitrarily large Euclidean ranks. There is an elementary explanation of this fact, as follows. Recall that Hiblot begins with a base ring R 0 of Euclidean rank ω, and then constructs his (transfinite) Euclidean domain R as a localization of the power series ring R = R 0 [[X]]. He then goes on to prove that, in his ring, the Euclidean norm of X R must always be at least ω. Now, if we wanted to repeat this argument, relative to itself, we would construct a Euclidean domain localization of R = R 0 [[X, Y ]], with irreducible elements X and Y, such that for every Euclidean norm ϕ on R we have that ϕ(x) ω (as before) and ϕ(y ) ω 2. However, note that, since R is a Euclidean ring, then it must be a principal ideal domain, from which it follows that there exist ring elements a, b such that ax + by = 1. But then we have that by = 1 ax, and ax = 1 by, and hence X and Y are invertible in R = R 0 [[X, Y ]], which implies that ϕ(x) = ϕ(y ) = 0 for the unique minimal Euclidean norm on R, a contradiction. The purpose of this article is to construct Euclidean domains of arbitrarily large Euclidean ranks by giving a completely new proof/construction of Hiblot s old result. In particular we will show how to construct commutative 1 Euclidean domains with arbitrarily large Euclidean ranks. Our construction will surely be useful to logicians and other mathematicians who seek to better understand the class of (transfinite) Euclidean rings. 1 This has already been done in the noncommutative case. See Lenstra s excellent monograph [Len74] for more details.
3 HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS 3 2. Constructing Higher Euclidean Domains We begin this section with an important definition that will be used throughout the rest of this article. Definition 2.1. Let ρ be an ordinal. We say that ρ is terminally-admissible whenever every terminal segment of ρ has the same cardinality as ρ. This is equivalent to saying that the cofinality of ρ is equal to the cardinality of ρ, or that the cofinality of ρ is as large as possible. 2 Remark 2.2. All countable limit ordinals and cardinals are terminally-admissible. See [Kun11] for more details on ordinal and cardinal numbers, as well as the definition of cofinality. More background information on Euclidean rings and domains can be found in [Len74, Sam71]. Let ρ ρ denote the cardinality of ρ O, and if ρ is a successor ordinal we let ρ O denote its predecessor. We now proceed to construct a Euclidean domain of Euclidean rank ω λ, for every terminally-admissible ordinal λ. Theorem 2.3 (Main Theorem). For every terminally-admissible ordinal λ, there is a Euclidean domain R of Euclidean rank ω λ. Constructing R. Recall that O denotes the class of ordinals and {γ k : k O}, is an indexing of the ordinals. Now, let λ O be a fixed terminally-admissible ordinal and let Q λ denote the free polynomial ring with countably many indeterminates indexed by ordinals less than or equal to λ. In other words, Q λ = Q[X β : 0 β < λ, β O]. Recall that Q λ, as well as all of its localizations, are unique factorization domains. Let F λ denote the fraction field of Q λ and for every pair of polynomials p, q Q λ, let (p, q) = (p, q) Qλ Q λ denote the greatest common divisor of p and q. Definition 2.4. Let m = i F λ F < X n i i Q λ0 Q λ be a monomial (with finitely many indeterminate factors) in Q λ. We define the degree of m via deg(m) = n i ω γ i O. i F λ F < If p Q λ is a polynomial then we define the degree of p to be deg(p) = max{deg(m) : m is a nonzero monomial summand of p}. We also define deg(0) = 0. Note that {deg(p) : p Q λ } = ω λ. Now, let α and β be ordinals with Cantor normal form α = n i ω γ i, and β = i F 1 λ F 1 < i F 2 λ F 2 < m i ω γ i. 2 One can easily show that the cofinality of ρ is at most the cardinality of ρ.
4 4 CHRIS J. CONIDIS Recall that the Hessenberg-Brookfield ordinal sum (see [Cla14, Section 1.2] for more details) of α and β, which we will denote as α + ω β, is given by α + ω β = (n i + m i )ω γi. i F 1 F 2 This is essentially the base-ω summation of α and β and is generally different from the usual ordinal sum of α and β. It follows that if m 1 and m 2 are monomials in Q λ then deg(m 1 m 2 ) = deg(m 1 )+ ω deg(m 2 ) (we leave the simple verification of this fact, which follows directly from the definitions of the concepts involved, to the reader). The main reasons why + ω is so important for us is because (1) it is commutative; and moreover (2) it enables us to employ various forms of subtraction. For example, let α, β, γ O, then we have that α + ω β = α + ω γ implies β = γ and also α + ω β α + ω γ implies β γ. Let {α k : k n}, n N, be a finite sequence of ordinal numbers. Then we will write n to denote the sum k=0 ω α k α 0 + ω α 1 + ω + ω α n. Let {a β,n,ρ : β, ρ < λ, n < ω} and {c β,n : β < λ, n < ω} be disjoint sequences of ordinal numbers < λ with no repetitions such that (1) for each fixed β 0 < λ, n 0 < ω we have that {a β0,n 0,ρ } ρ<λ is a strictly increasing sequence of ordinals cofinal in λ; and (2) for each fixed β 0 < λ we have that {c β0,n} n<ω is a strictly increasing sequence between β 0 and < β 0 + ω. The existence of such sequences follows from our hypothesis that λ is terminally-admissible. Moreover, for each β 0 < λ, n < ω, we have that every tail sequence of the form {a β0,n 0,ρ } ρ<λ has the same cardinality as Q λ, namely λ = Q λ. The ring R F will be a localization of Q λ. More specifically, we will construct sets U β = n<ω U β,n Q λ, β < λ, such that R = Q λ [U0 1 ] F and U β = ϕ 1 (β), β < λ, where ϕ : R ω λ is a Euclidean function for R. Let R 0 = Q λ. We now construct R and {U β : β < λ} as the limits of approximations in stages via recursion, R = n<ω R n F λ, U β = lim n U β,n = {x R : ( α 0 )( α 1 α 0 )[x U β,α1 ]} Q λ Q λ, where U β,α = ϕ 1 α (β), and Stage n = 0: First of all, define ϕ = lim α ϕ α, ϕ α : R α ω λ. ϕ 0 (p) = deg(p),
5 HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS 5 for each p Q λ. It is not difficult to see that for any p, q Q λ we have that ϕ 0 (pq) = ϕ 0 (p) + ω ϕ 0 (q). Now, for each β < λ, set U β,0 = ϕ 1 0 (β) R 0 = Q λ. This completes our constructions of {U β,0 : β < λ}, ϕ 0, and R 0 = Q λ. We now proceed to stage n + 1 ω and the construction of U n+1, V n+1, ϕ n+1, and R n+1. We will work inside the (given) unique factorization domain R n. Stage n + 1: First we construct ϕ n+1, in substages γ λ as follows Constructing ϕ n+1. This subsection is perhaps the most important in this article, because it gives the key ingredient in our construction of ϕ that will allow us to prove our Main Theorem below. We will refer back to this subsection, and in particular our construction of δ γ,1 below, later on in the proof of our Main Theorem. The following combinatorial fact will be useful later on and essentially lies at the heart of all of our most important arguments. Theorem 2.5 (König s Lemma). If T is a finitely branching tree with no infinite paths, then T is finite i.e. T has finitely many nodes. In other words, every infinite finitely-branching tree has an infinite path. Our construction at stage n+1 proceeds in substages γ < λ. At substage γ < λ we choose the least ordered pair of polynomials p, q Q 2 λ R2 α that we have not yet considered at any previous substage (relative to some previously chosen fixed ordering) and such that: (1) 1 ϕ α (q) ϕ α (p); and (2) (p, q) Qλ = 1. Now, let (a) δ γ,0 = ϕ n (q), if ϕ n (q) is a successor ordinal; (b) δ γ,0 = 1, otherwise. Note that in either case we have that δ γ,0 < ϕ n (q). In this paragraph we will construct another ordinal number, δ γ,1, as follows. To do this we will refer to special indices, special indeterminates, and special factors/polynomials 3 defined later on after our (recursive) construction of ϕ α+1 at substage γ. To construct δ γ,1 we first construct a set/tree of special indices in stages as follows. At stage s = 0 we let S 0 be the indices of all indeterminates appearing in either p or q. Then, at stage s + 1 we are given a set of ordinals S s and we add to it all indices of indeterminates appearing in special factors with special indeterminates already in S s. One can (and should) think of S s as collecting ordinal indices of indeterminates along a tree of special factors, beginning with the indices appearing in either p or q. By the way that we (will) construct special polynomials (see below for more details), we (will) have that the unique special indeterminate of a given special factor is always a strict upper bound for the indeterminates appearing in that factor, and hence via König s Lemma it follows that there is some s N for which S s = S s+1 = S is finite and our construction terminates (our tree of special indices can have no infinite paths since the special indices strictly decrease along paths). Finally, we define δ γ,1 to be the maximum of the finitely many ordinals in S that are strictly less than ϕ n (q). Let ɛ γ = max{δ γ,0, δ γ,1 }. It is not difficult to verify that 1 δ γ,0, δ γ,1 < ϕ n (q), from which it follows that 1 ɛ γ < ϕ n (q). 3 Special indices will be the ordinal indices of special indeterminates corresponding to special factors. Special factors are irreducible polynomials of the form p Xq, for polynomials p, q with (p, q) = 1, and special indeterminate X = X τ with special index τ O strictly larger than any index appearing in either p or q.
6 6 CHRIS J. CONIDIS Now, choose an ordinal ρ < λ large enough so that a = a γ = a ϕn(q),n,ρ is larger than the index of any indeterminate appearing in either p or q, and different from any a γ, γ < γ, and set ϕ n+1 (p X a q) = ɛ γ < ϕ n (q). Note that p X a q is irreducible since (p, q) Qλ = 1 and the ordinal index a was chosen strictly larger than that of any indeterminate appearing in either p or q (see property (3) above). Also note that if ϕ n (p X a q) is a successor ordinal then it follows that ϕ n+1 (p X a q) = ϕ n (p x a q). We declare the irreducible polynomial p X a q to be a special factor, or special polynomial, with (unique) special indeterminate X a larger than any indeterminate appearing in either p or q, and special index a = a γ. These declarations remain valid at all future stages n n+1 and substages γ. Finally, at substage γ = λ we extend ϕ n+1 to all of Q λ by first setting ϕ n+1 (p 0 ) = ϕ n (p 0 ), for any irreducible polynomial p 0 Q λ R such that ϕ n+1 (p 0 ) is currently undefined, and then setting N ϕ n+1 (p) = ϕ n+1 (p i ), whenever is the unique factorization of p Q λ. p = i=0 ω N i= Constructing R n+1 and R. Let W n+1 Q λ consist of all those polynomials p such that ϕ n+1 (p) = 0 (so far at stage n + 1). Now, we define p i R n+1 = R n [W 1 n+1]. By induction it follows that ϕ n+1 (p) = 0 iff p Q λ is a unit in R n+1. We extend ϕ n+1 to all of R n+1 via ϕ n+1 ( p q ) = ϕ n+1(p), as required by any Euclidean function on a localization. Finally, for each β < λ we set Note that for any x, y R n+1 we have that U β,n+1 = ϕ 1 n+1(β). ϕ n+1 (xy) = ϕ n+1 (x) + ω ϕ n+1 (y). This completes our construction of ϕ n+1, R n+1, and {U β,n+1 : β < λ}. Finally, we set R = n<ω R n, and ϕ = lim n ϕ n. The following lemma and its corollary below essentially implies that ϕ is well-defined. Their proofs follow directly from our construction of ϕ 0 = deg and ϕ n+1 above and are left to the reader. Lemma 2.6. Let p 0 Q λ R be an irreducible polynomial, and let ρ < λ be the largest ordinal index of any indeterminant appearing in p 0. Then we can write p 0 = q 0 + X ρ q 1,
7 HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS 7 for some unique polynomials q 0, q 1 Q λ. Now, for any polynomial p 0 Q λ R we have that ϕ(p 0 ) < deg(p 0 ) iff there exists a unique n N such that ϕ n+1 (p 0 ) < ϕ n (p 0 ), and this implies that ρ = a ϕn(q 1 ),n,ρ 1 = a deg(q1 ),n,ρ 1, for some ρ 1 < λ and p 0 is a special polynomial (as defined above). Corollary 2.7. (1) For each (fixed) x R, the values ϕ n (x) < ω λ decrease as n ω increases. (2) If x R is irreducible then there is at most one n ω such that ϕ n+1 (x) < ϕ n (x) and such an n exists iff x is a special factor. (3) For all x R the number of n ω such that ϕ n+1 (x) < ϕ n (x) is equal to the number of special factors dividing x. (4) lim n ϕ n (x) exists, for all x R. (5) For each pair of elements x, y R, ϕ(xy) = ϕ(x) + ω ϕ(y). We now verify that ϕ is a Euclidean function for R, making R a Euclidean domain. Verifying that R is a Euclidean Domain: Lemma 2.8. (R, ϕ) is a Euclidean domain. Proof. First of all, note that R is the (transfinite) union of unique factorization domains, and hence is a unique factorization domain itself. So it suffices to show that ϕ is a Euclidean norm for R. First of all, note that, by our construction of R = α<λ R α above it follows that ϕ(u) = 0 if and only if u R is a unit (in this case it follows that u is a product of elements of U 0 R). Now, to show that ϕ is a Euclidean function for R it suffices to show that whenever p, q R are such that ϕ(p) ϕ(q) 1, then there exists X R such that ϕ(p Xq) < ϕ(q). To prove this, first of all note that without any loss of generality we may assume that p and q are in Q λ R. Otherwise, if p = p 1 p 2 and q = q 1 q 2, with p 1, p 2, q 1, q 2 Q λ R and p 2, q 2 U, then it follows from our construction of ϕ above (or any other potential Euclidean function ϕ for R) that ϕ(p 1 q 2 ) = ϕ(p 1 ) = ϕ(p) ϕ(q) = ϕ(q 1 ) = ϕ(q 1 p 2 ). Hence, if we could find an X R such that ϕ(p 1 q 2 Xq 1 p 2 ) < ϕ(q 1 p 2 ) = ϕ(q 1 ) = ϕ(q) then (for this X) we would have that ( p1 ϕ(p Xq) = ϕ X q ) ( ) 1 p1 q 2 Xq 1 p 2 = ϕ = ϕ(p 1 q 2 Xq 1 p 2 ) < ϕ(q), p 2 q 2 p 2 q 2 thus proving the lemma. So we may assume that p, q Q λ R. Let p, q Q λ R be nonunits such that ϕ(p) ϕ(q) 1. To show that ϕ is a Euclidean function for R we need to show that there exists X R such that ϕ(p Xq) < ϕ(q). Without any loss of generality we may assume that (p, q) Qλ = 1 because it always suffices to find such an X for p and q, d = (p, q) d d Q λ, in place of p and q, respectively. Here we are using that fact that ϕ(xy) = ϕ(x) + ω ϕ(y), for all x, y R (see Lemma 2.6 and Corollary 2.7 above for more details).
8 8 CHRIS J. CONIDIS Now, assume that (p, q) Qλ = 1, and let k ω, k > 0, be such that for all k k we have that ϕ(p) = ϕ k (p) ϕ k (q) = ϕ(q) 1. By our construction of ϕ k above, we have that ϕ τ (p X a q) < ϕ τ (q), for some indeterminant X a with a = a ϕk (q),k,ρ, for some ordinal ρ < λ, and a O larger than any indeterminant appearing in either p or q. Now, by our construction of k and ϕ k (above) it follows that as required. Therefore, R is Euclidean via ϕ. ϕ(p X a q) = ϕ k (p X a q) < ϕ k (q) = ϕ(q), For the remainder of this section we turn our attention to proving that R has Euclidean rank ω λ. The Euclidean Rank of R is ω λ : The following definition will help us to prove the last part our Main Theorem asserting that the Euclidean rank of R is ω λ. Definition 2.9. Let ψ 0, ψ 1 be Euclidean functions on a ring T. Then ψ 0 = ψ1 whenever we have that, for all x T, there is no limit ordinal between ψ 0 (x) and ψ 1 (x). In other words, for all x T, ψ 0 (x) and ψ 1 (x) differ by a finite number. We write ψ 0 ψ 1 to indicate that it is not the case that ψ 0 = ψ1. Proposition The Euclidean rank of R is ω λ. To prove the proposition it suffices to prove the following lemma. Lemma Let ψ be the unique minimal Euclidean function on our Euclidean domain R, and let ϕ be the Euclidean function on R constructed above. Then ψ = ϕ. Proof. Suppose, for a contradiction, that ψ and ϕ satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem but ψ ϕ. Then, for some x R, there is a limit ordinal λ x, ψ(x) < λ x ϕ(x). Without any loss of generality we can take ψ(x) to be minimal with respect to this property. In other words, if µ x x is the greatest limit ordinal less than or equal to x, then we have that for all y R, if ϕ(y) µ x, then ψ(y) µ x. Now, since R is Euclidean with respect to ψ, for any ordinal c in the sequence {c ψ(x),n } n ω such that ψ(x) c < λ x we have that (1) wx c + qx = v, or w 0 w n X c + qx = v 0 v m, where w, q, v Q λ R, w = w 0 w 1 w m, w, w 0,..., w m U Q λ R irreducible in Q λ, v = v 0,..., v n, v 0,..., v m irreducible in Q λ \ U, ψ(v) < ψ(x) < ψ(x), and moreover ψ(v i ) = ϕ(v i ), 0 i m (by minimality of ψ(x)). Note that there are infinitely many candidates for the ordinal c and that equation (1) above is actually a (polynomial) equation in Q λ (we have cleared denominators in R, putting us in Q λ ). Note that we have not made any claims about ψ(x c ), although we know that ϕ(x c ) = deg(x c ) = ω c c. By choosing c not appearing in x, we may assume (without any loss of generality) that (wx c, qx) = (qx, v) = (wx c, v) = 1.
9 HIGHER EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS 9 Now, let Q c = Q[X ρ : ρ c], and let h c : Q λ Q c be the unique homomorphism Q λ Q λ that fixes all X a, a c, and maps X c to zero. Then, if we chose c such that the indeterminant X c does not appear in the polynomial x above (which is possible, since there are infinitely many choices for c and only finitely many indeterminants appearing in x), then it follows from equation (1) above that h c (q)x = h c (v). Thus x divides h c (v), which implies that h c (v) v, from which it follows that X c appears in v and hence X c appears in some irreducible v i0 Q λ, 0 i 0 m (possibly a unit in R). We claim that v i0 is a special factor. For suppose not, then we would have that ϕ(v i0 ) = deg(v i0 ) and thus ψ(v) ψ(v i0 ) = ϕ(v i0 ) = deg(v i0 ) c ψ(x), contradicting the fact that ψ(v) < ψ(x). We have established that v i0 is special with X c appearing and so v i0 = a 0 + X β0 b 0, for some a 0, b 0 Q λ R, (a 0, b 0 ) = 1, β 0 > c (note that c β 0 because our sequences {a β,n,l } and {c β,l } above are constructed disjoint from each other β 0 is a member of the former sequence while c is a member of the latter). We can now define a finite sequence of ordinals β 0 < β 1 < < β N, N N, as follows: (1) β 0 is taken from v i0 as above, and (2) Given β i, β i+1 > β i is the largest ordinal index of a special indeterminant in a special factor of the form v i or w j, 0 i m, 0 j n, in equation (1) above, (3) If β i+1 in (2) above does not exist, then terminate the sequence at β i = β N, N N. Now, by our construction of β N above it follows that X βn is the special indeterminant in a special factor of the form v i or w j, 0 i m, 0 j n in equation (1) above. Set β N = β and write z = a+x β b for this special factor. Now, by our construction of special factors and special indeterminants it follows that if z = w j, 0 j n, then X β cannot appear in any v i, 0 i m, and vice versa. Furthermore, without any loss of generality (i.e. by repeating the current proof with sufficiently many candidates for c, and resulting β = β c = β Nc ) we may assume that X β is not the index of any indeterminant appearing in the polynomial x (recall that first we fixed the polynomial x with ψ(x) minimal, and then we chose one of infinitely many candidates for c). 4 Hence, (without loss of generality) the only polynomial in which X β can possibly appear in equation 1 above is q. It follows that X β must appear in q (corresponding to its other appearance in either v i or w j ). But now we can substitute q = q 0 + X β q 1 and z = a + X β b in equation (1) above, with a, q 0, and either v or w (but not both), X β -free. It follows that x must divide b, since (x, v) = (x, w) = 1. Now, if z = z c = w j, 0 j n, then it follows that ϕ(b) = 1 and hence ϕ(x) = 1, a contradiction. Therefore we have that z = v i, 0 i m. In this case, though, by our construction of β = β N > β N 1 > > β 0 above and our construction of ϕ it follows that ϕ(z) depends on β 0 which, in turn, depends upon c (see Corollary 2.7 (ii) along with our choice of ɛ γ and its role in constructing ϕ α+1 in Subsection 2.1 above). More specifically, we have that ϕ(z) c > ψ(x). 4 The pigeonhole argument outlined here is a bit more subtle than we may have let on. One needs to construct finitely many finite trees of special factors/indeterminates/indices, one for each special indeterminate appearing in x. This construction is very similar to the one we used to construct ɛ γ in subsection 2.1 above. Finally, we choose an ordinal index c not mentioned in any of the finitely many special factors corresponding to nodes of these trees.
10 10 CHRIS J. CONIDIS Now, suppose that there exists a valid candidate for c such that ψ(z) = ψ(z c ) ψ(x). Then it follows that ψ(v) ψ(v i ) = ψ(z) ψ(x), a contradiction. So we must have that for all c, µ x ψ(z c ) < ψ(x), where µ x is the greatest limit ordinal ψ(x). Let m ω be such that ψ(x) = µ x + m. We can replace x by any z c, c µ x + m + 1 (our only assumptions on c-values were that there were infinitely many and ϕ(x c ) ψ(x)), and repeat the argument above (m+1)-many times to eventually obtain z = z c such that ϕ(z) µ x but ψ(z) < µ x, a contradiction to the minimality of x 5. Note that in every iteration of z in our argument, X c will always appear in z, and so by our construction of ϕ and δ γ,1 in Section 2.1 above, it follows that the first iteration of z for which ϕ(z) < λ x must also satisfy ϕ(z) c = µ x + m + 1. Furthermore, at all subsequent iterations ϕ(z) is exactly one less than the previous iteration while ψ(z) < ψ(x) < c is at least one less than the previous iteration. This completes our proof of Lemma 2.11 above, thus proving our Main Theorem. References [Cla14] P.L. Clark. Note on euclidean order types. Order, To appear. [DK11] R.G. Downey and A. Kach. Euclidean functions of computable euclidean domains. Notre Dame J. Form. Log., 52: , [Hib75] J.-J. Hiblot. Des anneaux euclidiens dont le plus petit algorithme nest pas valeurs finies. C.R. des Sciences A, 281: , [Kun11] K. Kunen. Set Theory. Studies in Logic. College Publications, [Len74] H.L. Lenstra. Lectures on Euclidean Rings. University of Bielefeld, [Mot49] Th. Motzkin. The euclidean algorithm. Bull. Amer. Math Soc., 55: , [Sam71] P. Samuel. About euclidean rings. Journal of Algebra, 19: , Note that, by our construction (i.e. the minimality) of x above it follows that there is an ordinal τ, µ x τ ψ(x), such that whenever ϕ(y) τ it follows that ψ(y) τ. Note that this part of the proof is similar in spirit to the verification of Euclid s Algorithm, since we construct new divisors from old remainders, as did Euclid.
Euclidean Domains. BYU ScholarsArchive. Brigham Young University. Vandy Jade Tombs Brigham Young University. All Theses and Dissertations
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2018-07-01 Euclidean Domains Vandy Jade Tombs Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
More informationJónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras
Jónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras Keith A. Kearnes and Greg Oman Abstract. We show that if P is an infinite poset whose proper order ideals have cardinality strictly less than P, and κ is a cardinal
More informationShort notes on Axioms of set theory, Well orderings and Ordinal Numbers
Short notes on Axioms of set theory, Well orderings and Ordinal Numbers August 29, 2013 1 Logic and Notation Any formula in Mathematics can be stated using the symbols and the variables,,,, =, (, ) v j
More informationNOTES ON WELL ORDERING AND ORDINAL NUMBERS. 1. Logic and Notation Any formula in Mathematics can be stated using the symbols
NOTES ON WELL ORDERING AND ORDINAL NUMBERS TH. SCHLUMPRECHT 1. Logic and Notation Any formula in Mathematics can be stated using the symbols,,,, =, (, ) and the variables v j : where j is a natural number.
More informationA NOTE ON EUCLIDEAN ORDER TYPES
A NOTE ON EUCLIDEAN ORDER TYPES PETE L. CLARK Abstract. Euclidean functions with values in an arbitrary well-ordered set were first considered by Motzkin in 1949 and studied in more detail by Samuel and
More information2. THE EUCLIDEAN ALGORITHM More ring essentials
2. THE EUCLIDEAN ALGORITHM More ring essentials In this chapter: rings R commutative with 1. An element b R divides a R, or b is a divisor of a, or a is divisible by b, or a is a multiple of b, if there
More informationThe complexity of recursive constraint satisfaction problems.
The complexity of recursive constraint satisfaction problems. Victor W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506, USA marek@cs.uky.edu Jeffrey B. Remmel Department
More informationRecursive definitions on surreal numbers
Recursive definitions on surreal numbers Antongiulio Fornasiero 19th July 2005 Abstract Let No be Conway s class of surreal numbers. I will make explicit the notion of a function f on No recursively defined
More informationNOTES ON FINITE FIELDS
NOTES ON FINITE FIELDS AARON LANDESMAN CONTENTS 1. Introduction to finite fields 2 2. Definition and constructions of fields 3 2.1. The definition of a field 3 2.2. Constructing field extensions by adjoining
More informationDefinitions. Notations. Injective, Surjective and Bijective. Divides. Cartesian Product. Relations. Equivalence Relations
Page 1 Definitions Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:23 AM Notations " " means "equals, by definition" the set of all real numbers the set of integers Denote a function from a set to a set by Denote the image of
More informationThe constructible universe
The constructible universe In this set of notes I want to sketch Gödel s proof that CH is consistent with the other axioms of set theory. Gödel s argument goes well beyond this result; his identification
More informationWell-foundedness of Countable Ordinals and the Hydra Game
Well-foundedness of Countable Ordinals and the Hydra Game Noah Schoem September 11, 2014 1 Abstract An argument involving the Hydra game shows why ACA 0 is insufficient for a theory of ordinals in which
More informationA NEW SET THEORY FOR ANALYSIS
Article A NEW SET THEORY FOR ANALYSIS Juan Pablo Ramírez 0000-0002-4912-2952 Abstract: We present the real number system as a generalization of the natural numbers. First, we prove the co-finite topology,
More informationω-stable Theories: Introduction
ω-stable Theories: Introduction 1 ω - Stable/Totally Transcendental Theories Throughout let T be a complete theory in a countable language L having infinite models. For an L-structure M and A M let Sn
More informationLecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352
Lecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352 Ivan Avramidi New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM 87801 June 3, 2004 Author: Ivan Avramidi; File: absmath.tex; Date: June 11,
More informationExample: This theorem is the easiest way to test an ideal (or an element) is prime. Z[x] (x)
Math 4010/5530 Factorization Theory January 2016 Let R be an integral domain. Recall that s, t R are called associates if they differ by a unit (i.e. there is some c R such that s = ct). Let R be a commutative
More informationFactorization in Polynomial Rings
Factorization in Polynomial Rings Throughout these notes, F denotes a field. 1 Long division with remainder We begin with some basic definitions. Definition 1.1. Let f, g F [x]. We say that f divides g,
More informationA BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM. MSC 2000: 03E05, 03E20, 06A10 Keywords: Chain Conditions, Boolean Algebras.
A BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM STEVO TODORCEVIC Abstract. We describe a Borel poset satisfying the σ-finite chain condition but failing to satisfy the σ-bounded chain condition. MSC 2000:
More informationHierarchy among Automata on Linear Orderings
Hierarchy among Automata on Linear Orderings Véronique Bruyère Institut d Informatique Université de Mons-Hainaut Olivier Carton LIAFA Université Paris 7 Abstract In a preceding paper, automata and rational
More informationAxioms for Set Theory
Axioms for Set Theory The following is a subset of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory. In this setting, all objects are sets which are denoted by letters, e.g. x, y, X, Y. Equality is logical identity:
More informationThe Absoluteness of Constructibility
Lecture: The Absoluteness of Constructibility We would like to show that L is a model of V = L, or, more precisely, that L is an interpretation of ZF + V = L in ZF. We have already verified that σ L holds
More information1/30: Polynomials over Z/n.
1/30: Polynomials over Z/n. Last time to establish the existence of primitive roots we rely on the following key lemma: Lemma 6.1. Let s > 0 be an integer with s p 1, then we have #{α Z/pZ α s = 1} = s.
More informationThis is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the positive assertion Minimal Arithmetic and Representability
16.2. MINIMAL ARITHMETIC AND REPRESENTABILITY 207 If T is a consistent theory in the language of arithmetic, we say a set S is defined in T by D(x) if for all n, if n is in S, then D(n) is a theorem of
More informationIntroduction to Set Theory
Introduction to Set Theory George Voutsadakis 1 1 Mathematics and Computer Science Lake Superior State University LSSU Math 400 George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Set Theory June 2014 1 / 67 Outline 1 Ordinal Numbers
More informationA NOTE ON THE EIGHTFOLD WAY
A NOTE ON THE EIGHTFOLD WAY THOMAS GILTON AND JOHN KRUEGER Abstract. Assuming the existence of a Mahlo cardinal, we construct a model in which there exists an ω 2 -Aronszajn tree, the ω 1 -approachability
More informationThe Vaught Conjecture Do uncountable models count?
The Vaught Conjecture Do uncountable models count? John T. Baldwin Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science University of Illinois at Chicago May 22, 2005 1 Is the Vaught Conjecture model
More informationALGEBRA HANDOUT 2.3: FACTORIZATION IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS. In this handout we wish to describe some aspects of the theory of factorization.
ALGEBRA HANDOUT 2.3: FACTORIZATION IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS PETE L. CLARK In this handout we wish to describe some aspects of the theory of factorization. The first goal is to state what it means for an arbitrary
More informationIRREDUCIBLES AND PRIMES IN COMPUTABLE INTEGRAL DOMAINS
IRREDUCIBLES AND PRIMES IN COMPUTABLE INTEGRAL DOMAINS LEIGH EVRON, JOSEPH R. MILETI, AND ETHAN RATLIFF-CRAIN Abstract. A computable ring is a ring equipped with mechanical procedure to add and multiply
More informationContinued fractions for complex numbers and values of binary quadratic forms
arxiv:110.3754v1 [math.nt] 18 Feb 011 Continued fractions for complex numbers and values of binary quadratic forms S.G. Dani and Arnaldo Nogueira February 1, 011 Abstract We describe various properties
More informationPart II. Logic and Set Theory. Year
Part II Year 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2018 60 Paper 4, Section II 16G State and prove the ǫ-recursion Theorem. [You may assume the Principle of ǫ- Induction.]
More information32 Divisibility Theory in Integral Domains
3 Divisibility Theory in Integral Domains As we have already mentioned, the ring of integers is the prototype of integral domains. There is a divisibility relation on * : an integer b is said to be divisible
More informationON THE COMPUTABILITY OF PERFECT SUBSETS OF SETS WITH POSITIVE MEASURE
ON THE COMPUTABILITY OF PERFECT SUBSETS OF SETS WITH POSITIVE MEASURE C. T. CHONG, WEI LI, WEI WANG, AND YUE YANG Abstract. A set X 2 ω with positive measure contains a perfect subset. We study such perfect
More informationALGEBRA. 1. Some elementary number theory 1.1. Primes and divisibility. We denote the collection of integers
ALGEBRA CHRISTIAN REMLING 1. Some elementary number theory 1.1. Primes and divisibility. We denote the collection of integers by Z = {..., 2, 1, 0, 1,...}. Given a, b Z, we write a b if b = ac for some
More informationA product of γ-sets which is not Menger.
A product of γ-sets which is not Menger. A. Miller Dec 2009 Theorem. Assume CH. Then there exists γ-sets A 0, A 1 2 ω such that A 0 A 1 is not Menger. We use perfect sets determined by Silver forcing (see
More informationCommutative Banach algebras 79
8. Commutative Banach algebras In this chapter, we analyze commutative Banach algebras in greater detail. So we always assume that xy = yx for all x, y A here. Definition 8.1. Let A be a (commutative)
More informationFORCING WITH SEQUENCES OF MODELS OF TWO TYPES
FORCING WITH SEQUENCES OF MODELS OF TWO TYPES ITAY NEEMAN Abstract. We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work
More information(Rgs) Rings Math 683L (Summer 2003)
(Rgs) Rings Math 683L (Summer 2003) We will first summarise the general results that we will need from the theory of rings. A unital ring, R, is a set equipped with two binary operations + and such that
More informationGeneralized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs
Europ. J. Combinatorics (2002) 23, 257 274 doi:10.1006/eujc.2002.0574 Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Generalized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs ANTHONY BONATO, PETER
More informationA NEW LINDELOF SPACE WITH POINTS G δ
A NEW LINDELOF SPACE WITH POINTS G δ ALAN DOW Abstract. We prove that implies there is a zero-dimensional Hausdorff Lindelöf space of cardinality 2 ℵ1 which has points G δ. In addition, this space has
More informationLöwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω. David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007)
Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω 0. Introduction David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007) In its simplest form the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem for L ω1 ω states that if σ L ω1
More information(1) A frac = b : a, b A, b 0. We can define addition and multiplication of fractions as we normally would. a b + c d
The Algebraic Method 0.1. Integral Domains. Emmy Noether and others quickly realized that the classical algebraic number theory of Dedekind could be abstracted completely. In particular, rings of integers
More informationATOMLESS r-maximal SETS
ATOMLESS r-maximal SETS PETER A. CHOLAK AND ANDRÉ NIES Abstract. We focus on L(A), the filter of supersets of A in the structure of the computably enumerable sets under the inclusion relation, where A
More informationCourse 311: Michaelmas Term 2005 Part III: Topics in Commutative Algebra
Course 311: Michaelmas Term 2005 Part III: Topics in Commutative Algebra D. R. Wilkins Contents 3 Topics in Commutative Algebra 2 3.1 Rings and Fields......................... 2 3.2 Ideals...............................
More informationNotes on ordinals and cardinals
Notes on ordinals and cardinals Reed Solomon 1 Background Terminology We will use the following notation for the common number systems: N = {0, 1, 2,...} = the natural numbers Z = {..., 2, 1, 0, 1, 2,...}
More informationAlgebraic Cryptography Exam 2 Review
Algebraic Cryptography Exam 2 Review You should be able to do the problems assigned as homework, as well as problems from Chapter 3 2 and 3. You should also be able to complete the following exercises:
More informationPrime Rational Functions and Integral Polynomials. Jesse Larone, Bachelor of Science. Mathematics and Statistics
Prime Rational Functions and Integral Polynomials Jesse Larone, Bachelor of Science Mathematics and Statistics Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Faculty
More informationHOW DO ULTRAFILTERS ACT ON THEORIES? THE CUT SPECTRUM AND TREETOPS
HOW DO ULTRAFILTERS ACT ON THEORIES? THE CUT SPECTRUM AND TREETOPS DIEGO ANDRES BEJARANO RAYO Abstract. We expand on and further explain the work by Malliaris and Shelah on the cofinality spectrum by doing
More informationPolynomials, Ideals, and Gröbner Bases
Polynomials, Ideals, and Gröbner Bases Notes by Bernd Sturmfels for the lecture on April 10, 2018, in the IMPRS Ringvorlesung Introduction to Nonlinear Algebra We fix a field K. Some examples of fields
More informationbe any ring homomorphism and let s S be any element of S. Then there is a unique ring homomorphism
21. Polynomial rings Let us now turn out attention to determining the prime elements of a polynomial ring, where the coefficient ring is a field. We already know that such a polynomial ring is a UFD. Therefore
More informationCountable Menger s theorem with finitary matroid constraints on the ingoing edges
Countable Menger s theorem with finitary matroid constraints on the ingoing edges Attila Joó Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, MTA-ELTE Egerváry Research Group. Budapest, Hungary jooattila@renyi.hu
More informationNOTES ON LINEAR ALGEBRA OVER INTEGRAL DOMAINS. Contents. 1. Introduction 1 2. Rank and basis 1 3. The set of linear maps 4. 1.
NOTES ON LINEAR ALGEBRA OVER INTEGRAL DOMAINS Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Rank and basis 1 3. The set of linear maps 4 1. Introduction These notes establish some basic results about linear algebra over
More informationSUBSPACES OF COMPUTABLE VECTOR SPACES
SUBSPACES OF COMPUTABLE VECTOR SPACES RODNEY G. DOWNEY, DENIS R. HIRSCHFELDT, ASHER M. KACH, STEFFEN LEMPP, JOSEPH R. MILETI, AND ANTONIO MONTALBÁN Abstract. We show that the existence of a nontrivial
More informationTHE LENGTH OF NOETHERIAN MODULES
THE LENGTH OF NOETHERIAN MODULES GARY BROOKFIELD Abstract. We define an ordinal valued length for Noetherian modules which extends the usual definition of composition series length for finite length modules.
More informationCOUNTEREXAMPLES TO THE UNIQUE AND COFINAL BRANCHES HYPOTHESES
COUNTEREXAMPLES TO THE UNIQUE AND COFINAL BRANCHES HYPOTHESES ITAY NEEMAN AND JOHN STEEL Abstract. We produce counterexamples to the unique and cofinal branches hypotheses, assuming (slightly less than)
More informationUNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS TREVOR M. WILSON
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS TREVOR M. WILSON Abstract. We prove several equivalences and relative consistency results involving notions of generic absoluteness beyond Woodin s ) (Σ
More informationSubsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm
Subsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm Andrew D. Lewis 2009/03/16 Abstract Subsets of a Euclidean domain are characterised with the following objectives: (1) ensuring uniqueness
More informationφ(xy) = (xy) n = x n y n = φ(x)φ(y)
Groups 1. (Algebra Comp S03) Let A, B and C be normal subgroups of a group G with A B. If A C = B C and AC = BC then prove that A = B. Let b B. Since b = b1 BC = AC, there are a A and c C such that b =
More informationSHELAH S SINGULAR COMPACTNESS THEOREM
SHELAH S SINGULAR COMPACTNESS THEOREM PAUL C. EKLOF Abstract. We present Shelah s famous theorem in a version for modules, together with a self-contained proof and some examples. This exposition is based
More informationFinite Fields: An introduction through exercises Jonathan Buss Spring 2014
Finite Fields: An introduction through exercises Jonathan Buss Spring 2014 A typical course in abstract algebra starts with groups, and then moves on to rings, vector spaces, fields, etc. This sequence
More informationLecture Notes in Real Analysis Anant R. Shastri Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Lecture Notes in Real Analysis 2010 Anant R. Shastri Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Bombay August 6, 2010 Lectures 1-3 (I-week) Lecture 1 Why real numbers? Example 1 Gaps in the
More informationSet Theory and the Foundation of Mathematics. June 19, 2018
1 Set Theory and the Foundation of Mathematics June 19, 2018 Basics Numbers 2 We have: Relations (subsets on their domain) Ordered pairs: The ordered pair x, y is the set {{x, y}, {x}}. Cartesian products
More informationThe Euclidean Algorithm in Quadratic Number Fields
The Euclidean Algorithm in Quadratic Number Fields Sarah Mackie Supervised by: Prof. Christopher Smyth September 6, 06 Abstract The purpose of this report is to investigate the Euclidean Algorithm in quadratic
More informationCORES OF ALEXANDROFF SPACES
CORES OF ALEXANDROFF SPACES XI CHEN Abstract. Following Kukie la, we show how to generalize some results from May s book [4] concerning cores of finite spaces to cores of Alexandroff spaces. It turns out
More informationINFINITE DIMENSIONAL PROPER SUBSPACES OF COMPUTABLE VECTOR SPACES
INFINITE DIMENSIONAL PROPER SUBSPACES OF COMPUTABLE VECTOR SPACES CHRIS J. CONIDIS Abstract. This article examines and distinguishes different techniques for coding incomputable information into infinite
More informationRepresenting Scott Sets in Algebraic Settings
Representing Scott Sets in Algebraic Settings Alf Dolich Kingsborough Community College Julia F. Knight University of Notre Dame Karen Lange Wellesley College David Marker University of Illinois at Chicago
More informationWEIERSTRASS THEOREMS AND RINGS OF HOLOMORPHIC FUNCTIONS
WEIERSTRASS THEOREMS AND RINGS OF HOLOMORPHIC FUNCTIONS YIFEI ZHAO Contents. The Weierstrass factorization theorem 2. The Weierstrass preparation theorem 6 3. The Weierstrass division theorem 8 References
More informationDIVIDING AND WEAK QUASI-DIMENSIONS IN ARBITRARY THEORIES
DIVIDING AND WEAK QUASI-DIMENSIONS IN ARBITRARY THEORIES ISAAC GODBRING AND HENRY TOWSNER Abstract. We show that any countable model of a model complete theory has an elementary extension with a pseudofinite-like
More informationSKETCHY NOTES FOR WEEKS 7 AND 8
SKETCHY NOTES FOR WEEKS 7 AND 8 We are now ready to start work on the proof of the Completeness Theorem for first order logic. Before we start a couple of remarks are in order (1) When we studied propositional
More informationNotes on Freiman s Theorem
Notes on Freiman s Theorem Jacques Verstraëte Department of Mathematics University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA, 92093. E-mail: jacques@ucsd.edu. 1 Introduction Freiman s Theorem describes the
More informationOutside ZF - Set Cardinality, the Axiom of Choice, and the Continuum Hypothesis
Outside ZF - Set Cardinality, the Axiom of Choice, and the Continuum Hypothesis Tali Magidson June 6, 2017 Synopsis In June 2002, "Two Classical Surprises Concerning the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum
More informationDONG QUAN NGOC NGUYEN
REPRESENTATION OF UNITS IN CYCLOTOMIC FUNCTION FIELDS DONG QUAN NGOC NGUYEN Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Some basic notions 3 21 The Galois group Gal(K /k) 3 22 Representation of integers in O, and the
More informationIn N we can do addition, but in order to do subtraction we need to extend N to the integers
Chapter The Real Numbers.. Some Preliminaries Discussion: The Irrationality of 2. We begin with the natural numbers N = {, 2, 3, }. In N we can do addition, but in order to do subtraction we need to extend
More informationFree Subgroups of the Fundamental Group of the Hawaiian Earring
Journal of Algebra 219, 598 605 (1999) Article ID jabr.1999.7912, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Free Subgroups of the Fundamental Group of the Hawaiian Earring Katsuya Eda School of
More informationAdditive Combinatorics Lecture 12
Additive Combinatorics Lecture 12 Leo Goldmakher Scribe: Gal Gross April 4th, 2014 Last lecture we proved the Bohr-to-gAP proposition, but the final step was a bit mysterious we invoked Minkowski s second
More information2 Arithmetic. 2.1 Greatest common divisors. This chapter is about properties of the integers Z = {..., 2, 1, 0, 1, 2,...}.
2 Arithmetic This chapter is about properties of the integers Z = {..., 2, 1, 0, 1, 2,...}. (See [Houston, Chapters 27 & 28]) 2.1 Greatest common divisors Definition 2.16. If a, b are integers, we say
More informationCHAPTER 8: EXPLORING R
CHAPTER 8: EXPLORING R LECTURE NOTES FOR MATH 378 (CSUSM, SPRING 2009). WAYNE AITKEN In the previous chapter we discussed the need for a complete ordered field. The field Q is not complete, so we constructed
More information20 Ordinals. Definition A set α is an ordinal iff: (i) α is transitive; and. (ii) α is linearly ordered by. Example 20.2.
20 Definition 20.1. A set α is an ordinal iff: (i) α is transitive; and (ii) α is linearly ordered by. Example 20.2. (a) Each natural number n is an ordinal. (b) ω is an ordinal. (a) ω {ω} is an ordinal.
More informationThe length-ω 1 open game quantifier propagates scales
The length-ω 1 open game quantifier propagates scales John R. Steel June 5, 2006 0 Introduction We shall call a set T an ω 1 -tree if only if T α
More informationA polytime proof of correctness of the Rabin-Miller algorithm from Fermat s Little Theorem
A polytime proof of correctness of the Rabin-Miller algorithm from Fermat s Little Theorem Grzegorz Herman and Michael Soltys November 24, 2008 Abstract Although a deterministic polytime algorithm for
More information2. Prime and Maximal Ideals
18 Andreas Gathmann 2. Prime and Maximal Ideals There are two special kinds of ideals that are of particular importance, both algebraically and geometrically: the so-called prime and maximal ideals. Let
More informationProjective well-orderings of the reals and forcing axioms
Projective well-orderings of the reals and forcing axioms Andrés Eduardo Department of Mathematics Boise State University 2011 North American Annual Meeting UC Berkeley, March 24 27, 2011 This is joint
More informationRINGS ISOMORPHIC TO THEIR NONTRIVIAL SUBRINGS
RINGS ISOMORPHIC TO THEIR NONTRIVIAL SUBRINGS JACOB LOJEWSKI AND GREG OMAN Abstract. Let G be a nontrivial group, and assume that G = H for every nontrivial subgroup H of G. It is a simple matter to prove
More informationWell-Ordered Sets, Ordinals and Cardinals Ali Nesin 1 July 2001
Well-Ordered Sets, Ordinals and Cardinals Ali Nesin 1 July 2001 Definitions. A set together with a binary relation < is called a partially ordered set (poset in short) if x (x < x) x y z ((x < y y < z)
More informationLecture 7.5: Euclidean domains and algebraic integers
Lecture 7.5: Euclidean domains and algebraic integers Matthew Macauley Department of Mathematical Sciences Clemson University http://www.math.clemson.edu/~macaule/ Math 4120, Modern Algebra M. Macauley
More informationTheorem 5.3. Let E/F, E = F (u), be a simple field extension. Then u is algebraic if and only if E/F is finite. In this case, [E : F ] = deg f u.
5. Fields 5.1. Field extensions. Let F E be a subfield of the field E. We also describe this situation by saying that E is an extension field of F, and we write E/F to express this fact. If E/F is a field
More information(Inv) Computing Invariant Factors Math 683L (Summer 2003)
(Inv) Computing Invariant Factors Math 683L (Summer 23) We have two big results (stated in (Can2) and (Can3)) concerning the behaviour of a single linear transformation T of a vector space V In particular,
More informationFormal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings
Formal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings Formal semigroup rings and formal power series rings We next want to explore the notion of a (formal) power series ring in finitely
More informationMath 140: Foundations of Real Analysis. Todd Kemp
Math 140: Foundations of Real Analysis Todd Kemp Contents Part 1. Math 140A 5 Chapter 1. Ordered Sets, Ordered Fields, and Completeness 7 1. Lecture 1: January 5, 2016 7 2. Lecture 2: January 7, 2016
More informationSection III.6. Factorization in Polynomial Rings
III.6. Factorization in Polynomial Rings 1 Section III.6. Factorization in Polynomial Rings Note. We push several of the results in Section III.3 (such as divisibility, irreducibility, and unique factorization)
More informationNON-COMMUTATIVE POLYNOMIAL COMPUTATIONS
NON-COMMUTATIVE POLYNOMIAL COMPUTATIONS ARJEH M. COHEN These notes describe some of the key algorithms for non-commutative polynomial rings. They are intended for the Masterclass Computer algebra, Spring
More informationA MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ
A MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ NICOLAS FORD Abstract. The goal of this paper is to present a proof of the Nullstellensatz using tools from a branch of logic called model theory. In
More informationBasic Algebra. Final Version, August, 2006 For Publication by Birkhäuser Boston Along with a Companion Volume Advanced Algebra In the Series
Basic Algebra Final Version, August, 2006 For Publication by Birkhäuser Boston Along with a Companion Volume Advanced Algebra In the Series Cornerstones Selected Pages from Chapter I: pp. 1 15 Anthony
More informationTHE CLOSED-POINT ZARISKI TOPOLOGY FOR IRREDUCIBLE REPRESENTATIONS. K. R. Goodearl and E. S. Letzter
THE CLOSED-POINT ZARISKI TOPOLOGY FOR IRREDUCIBLE REPRESENTATIONS K. R. Goodearl and E. S. Letzter Abstract. In previous work, the second author introduced a topology, for spaces of irreducible representations,
More informationRepresenting Scott Sets in Algebraic Settings
Wellesley College Wellesley College Digital Scholarship and Archive Faculty Research and Scholarship 8-2015 Representing Scott Sets in Algebraic Settings Alf Dolich Julia F. Knight Karen Lange klange2@wellesley.edu
More informationMATH 3300 Test 1. Name: Student Id:
Name: Student Id: There are nine problems (check that you have 9 pages). Solutions are expected to be short. In the case of proofs, one or two short paragraphs should be the average length. Write your
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationLimit computable integer parts
Limit computable integer parts Paola D Aquino, Julia Knight, and Karen Lange July 12, 2010 Abstract Let R be a real closed field. An integer part I for R is a discretely ordered subring such that for every
More informationOn poset Boolean algebras
1 On poset Boolean algebras Uri Abraham Department of Mathematics, Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel Robert Bonnet Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Université de Savoie, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France
More informationCSE 1400 Applied Discrete Mathematics Proofs
CSE 1400 Applied Discrete Mathematics Proofs Department of Computer Sciences College of Engineering Florida Tech Fall 2011 Axioms 1 Logical Axioms 2 Models 2 Number Theory 3 Graph Theory 4 Set Theory 4
More informationWe are going to discuss what it means for a sequence to converge in three stages: First, we define what it means for a sequence to converge to zero
Chapter Limits of Sequences Calculus Student: lim s n = 0 means the s n are getting closer and closer to zero but never gets there. Instructor: ARGHHHHH! Exercise. Think of a better response for the instructor.
More information